Talk:Royal Crescent/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and jot notes below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section read awkwardly so I planned on rejigging it, but realised that just rejigging the gaps makes it flow better, so the first para is context and location, second para is construction, and third is the ditch etc. Take a look and see if you're happy with that.

Yep I agree that works.— Rod ^talk 19:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any info on the rus in urbe idea would be good to add.

I've added a wiktionary link - seems just mean to bring the countryside into the urban area. I'm not sure what else to add.— Rod ^talk 19:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sorta meant if there was any theory or idea behind it relating to the design, but never mind if there wasn't Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

although he was rarely resident as he was... - why not just "although he rarely resided/lived there as he was.... "

Changed.— Rod ^talk 19:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

many are privately owned but a substantial minority are owned by a housing association - I am not sure what a "housing association" means as I am not familiar with the specific meaning of this term in the UK...

:::Wikilinked to Housing association. Do I need more - perhaps Public housing in the United Kingdom?— Rod ^talk 19:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hmm, I think it is pretty interesting how some of the most prestigious address became public housing. Any info on this would be fascinating. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've added a short paragraph - can't find much else, but it appears several houses bought by council post WWII to rent out because of housing shortage. Several subsequently sold off but one still in council ownership.— Rod ^talk 07:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That helps a lot. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two sentences in the second para of current use are not linked to each other (the first should be in the first para by context) - both could help with a little expansion of info and why does the second have 3 refs for it?

:::I've changed the paragraph break and added more about the bus ban. The second sentence was very controversial & I was previously challenged to provide a source.— Rod ^talk 19:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Film and television, the Time Team material is at odds with the rest of the material as it is fact rather than fiction and would go better somewhere else. My thinking is it would go better at the end of para 3 of the Design and construction section.

Moved.— Rod ^talk 19:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A nice read overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

(NB: Earwig's copyvio clear)

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]